Advice for fighting an Infringement Notice - for not putting my foot down?

[dinosaur]

I go to court on the 24th December for failing to stop at a rail crossing

turning off Ruakura Rd on to Holland Rd, pulled up and stopped at the rail crossing then continued over (no trains coming)
Pulled over 200 meters up the road by Police - they asked if I stopped, I said I did
He asked if I put my foot down when I stopped ......... I thought for a moment then replied "I don't think so"

He issued me with an infringement notice claiming I didn't stop or I would've put my foot down

No matter how much I discussed this point - he was not interested and issued the ticket for $150

needless to say I was annoyed; whats the point in issueing a ticket? he admitted I checked for trains - if they're running a campaign to make people aware of rail crossing that's all good - but, and as the cop agree'd; he did see me slow right down and look in both direction checking for trains, but he didn't see me put my foot down, he claims I did not technically stop

I wrote in and explained I don't need to put my foot down to stop long enough to check for a train - especially when there's a clear view leading up to and at the crossing to check for trains - they replied that they would not wave the notice as it comes down to my testimony against the officers testimony?

So off to court



Question; is there any rule or law that requires me to put my foot down when I stop - I have read the road code and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and can't find any requirement to do so? Am i correct

I know plenty of riders who can come to a stop on there bike with putting their foot down ?

Whats the best way to fight this?

[Devil]

Did you actually stop? Some people seem to have varying definitions for 'stop' when the meaning is quite unambiguous. Stopped is stopped.
But yes, there is no rule specifying that you must put a foot down.

[sidecar bob]

Swarfie on here got done for the same thing & sucessfully argued it. PM him if he dosent pop up here.

[swarfie]

Swarfie on here got done for the same thing & sucessfully argued it. PM him if he dosent pop up here.

True it is. Years of trail-riding and trials experience means I quite often stop, look both ways and continue on if the way is clear. Popo pulled me for it when in my teens (bloody long time ago :laugh:) and I told me he didn't see me put my foot down when I "stopped". I asked him if I was driving my car did I have to open the door and put my foot on the road also, and that where in the road code did it say motorcyclists have to put their foot or feet down when stopping? He finally admitted that I did STOP and let me go on my way. Shame you have to go to court to fight it. <_< Good luck.

[Murray]

Hey Pete lucky you weren't on the LOR ride down to the Toyrun he did 5 of us - same reasoning "no foot down".

Great charity day but to the wrong people

[kiwi cowboy]

Get someone to film you riding in a car park or somewhere stopping balanced and then moving off a few times to show you can do it may help. May not too. Good luck.
I often stop for a couple secs if the lights up ahead have just turned green and the traffic is moving off in front of me and can balance quite comfortably on my bandit for that long.

[Latte]

Get someone to film you riding in a car park or somewhere stopping balanced and then moving off a few times to show you can do it may help. May not too. Good luck.
I often stop for a couple secs if the lights up ahead have just turned green and the traffic is moving off in front of me and can balance quite comfortably on my bandit for that long.

+1

"He asked if I put my foot down when I stopped ........." - if these were his words then he agrees you stopped, you just didn't put your foot down. Using this, the legislation where it doesn't mention requiring you to put your foot down, and a practical example of you being able to stop without putting your foot down will be the best chance you have.

[BigAl]

As in http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303658.html?search=sw_096be8ed80f4ea93_rail+cro ssing+stop_25_se&p=1


(a) stop the driver's vehicle in a position and for a time that enables the driver to ascertain whether the line is clear; and


(b) remain stationary until the way is clear to proceed.

So say that you can balance bike at a complete stop w/o putting feet down.

[R650R]

Your infringement is for failing to stop, not for failing to put your foot down. And as the legend above got away with it at roadside and not court that's no precedent as wont be recorded.

I'd be out practising my feet up balance stops and video it showing you can consistently do it to have a chance of arguing it. I would say stopping means being stationary for at least a second to properly look both ways.
Good luck but really the cop is just goping to say in his opinion you didn't stop.
Hopefully the judge will give you benefit of doubt if you have a clean driving record and haven't blown stops or give ways before etc...

[TheDemonLord]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv5fqunQ_4I

[BlackSheepLogic]

I agree as well. He probably can't do it himself so you obviously can't BS. Film yourself stopping without putting your foot down.


+1

"He asked if I put my foot down when I stopped ........." - if these were his words then he agrees you stopped, you just didn't put your foot down. Using this, the legislation where it doesn't mention requiring you to put your foot down, and a practical example of you being able to stop without putting your foot down will be the best chance you have.

[Waihou Thumper]

Stationwagon?
I was going along Holland road and saw the white flashing lights on his grill....
I thought maybe someone was speeding but....IT WAS YOU THEN....:)

[Swoop]

There are riders around (a few on here) who are able to balance their bike for quite long periods - with their wheels not rotating "at a complete standstill". MDU used to be able to hold for up to 30 seconds.

There is the requirement to come to a complete standstill at a stop sign. Two police persons have now stated that even if you are second in the queue and stop, that is acceptable (to them, at least. Dunno about a judges' interpretation of that.)
There is no requirement to place your foot on the ground, even though we are taught to do that. Where would the line get drawn? A quick "stomp" on the ground as you move slowly??
So long as the wheel ceases rotation and you look for a clear road to enter/cross, the time taken to accomplish that is irrelevant.
Should car drivers have to apply their handbrake in the same circumstance??

Clearly the bacon is making sure people do not run the red, and you haven't (as he witnessed your actions). Presumably he needed an extra stamp in his customer loyalty card at Dunkin' Donuts...;)

[skippa1]

Fucken bacon bullshit.....

[swbarnett]

I've come through that intersection a number of times and never stopped once. Anyone that needs to stop to see if the tracks are clear needs their eyes checked. I think LTNZ or the Hamilton council needs to be charged with "Over zealous use of a stop sign".

[oneofsix]

Video of feet up stopping, copy of BHS requirements and have fun wasting the popos day in court.
At most stop signs most riders wouldn't be able to concentrate on checking the road enough and balancing the stationary bike so I wouldn't recommend it as a practice but you do technically have a case and I, like the law is meant to, will give you the benefit of the doubt according to your description.

[St_Gabriel]

Playing devils advocate here, can I just drop my foot to the ground whilst still rolling and call it "Stopped". Officer says foot needs to be on the ground... Might be a salient point to bring up in your defence.

(and yes I know it wouldn't be acceptable)

[5150]

I can stop for hours without putting my feet down. Then again, I ride a sidecar :lol:

[Old Steve]

Better than a video. Address the judge in your opening statement that the law specifically requires you to stop "in a position and for a time that enables the driver to ascertain whether the line is clear; and remain stationary until the way is clear to proceed." That the Policeman advised that you didn't put your foot down when you stopped, therefore you were advised by him that you had indeed stopped. And that your bike is down in the carpark and you are prepared to demonstrate how a motorcyclist can indeed stop yet not have to put their foot on the ground. Then ask for the charge to be dismissed.

[BigAl]

....And that your bike is down in the carpark and you are prepared to demonstrate how a motorcyclist can indeed stop yet not have to put their foot on the ground. Then ask for the charge to be dismissed.

Better still ask to demonstrate feet up balancing on your bike in the court room!

Then do some skids :headbang:

[5150]

Better still ask to demonstrate feet up balancing on your bike in the court room!

Then do some skids :headbang:

Tempted :)

[Akzle]

your bike in the court room

Then do some skids :headbang:

do it faggot

[pritch]

Where would the line get drawn? A quick "stomp" on the ground as you move slowly??


I'd call it a dab, and I would be barely moving. The dab though would be purely for the benefit of any, as yet unseen, tax collector in the vicinity. Hopefully thus avoiding the situation in which you find yourself.

As has been pointed out there are people can sit on an immobile bike for some time without putting a foot down. Should you be one such you could invite the assembled gathering outside the court to witness you perform. In the event that you can't perform this feat convincingly, you should probably just pay up and write it off to experience.

People seem to be driving themselves under trains with a certain frequency so it shouldn't be a surprise that the :Police: are vigilant around crossings.

On the other hand the former MoT officers were much tougher on all forms of compulsory stop than are the current enforcers of the law. Failing to stop is probably not as good an earner as issuing speeding tickets

[rastuscat]

Video of feet up stopping, copy of BHS requirements and have fun wasting the popos day in court.

Just sayin.

If the Popo spends a day in court he's paid to be there. It'll be the taxpayers time that's wasted, not the Popos.

[awa355]

The question that will probably be asked is, 'If you were balancing the bike without having to put at least one foot down, then how can you say you spent the required time looking along the rail tracks, in both directions, to determine there was no risk.?'

[dinosaur]

...... there are people can sit on an immobile bike for some time without putting a foot down. Should you be one such you could invite the assembled gathering outside the court to witness you perform. In the event that you can't perform this feat convincingly, you should probably just pay up and write it off to experience.

Been riding for 35 plus years - and the bandit is an easy bike to balance - not a problem demonstrating

[dinosaur]

The question that will probably be asked is, 'If you were balancing the bike without having to put at least one foot down, then how can you say you spent the required time looking along the rail tracks, in both directions, to determine there was no risk.?'

Why would you think that would be hard ??? just got to turn your head?

[Maha]

Coming to a complete stop without putting your feet down is no issue, after 2 seconds it may become one, but it can be done.

[SPman]

Then there is the scenario (I have done it) of stopping - the bike rolls backwards a tad, then moving off forward again. You are actually stopped twice! Try telling that to some of the clowns in uniform! Totally beyond them!

[oneofsix]

Just sayin.

If the Popo spends a day in court he's paid to be there. It'll be the taxpayers time that's wasted, not the Popos.

who's budget? what would you rather be doing? given the attitude suggested this one would rather be hassling people. But yes what you state is why most people just pay up rather than challenge

[haydes55]

Just sayin.



If the Popo spends a day in court he's paid to be there. It'll be the taxpayers time that's wasted, not the Popos.


One less officer behind a radar gun for a day... Might just save a life.

[Racing Dave]

If the cop was close enough to the rail crossing to see that you checked for trains (despite the alleged not stopping) why didn't you notice him noticing you? Maybe your observation skills need improving and this is the necessary wake-up call.

Just a thought...

[awayatc]

Re racing dave's post

Trains are on rails......
cops are not (unfortunately )
you are supposed to check for trains...
not for cops
What part is it you don't understand.?

[Premature Accelerato]

This is easy enough to put right. Make an appointment with a local JP (can be found through the local Citizns advice group). Get him to physically watch you stop with feet up for 5 seconds and then get him to sign a written statment to the fact. You can write it up factually but he must sign it and stamp it.

[wharekura]

Hey Pete lucky you weren't on the LOR ride down to the Toyrun he did 5 of us - same reasoning "no foot down".
Great charity day but to the wrong people
This was it
306708

[Murray]

This was it
306708

Cool picture David

Cheers - hows the bike riding going???

[wharekura]

Cheers - hows the bike riding going???
Bike sold quickly a few months ago - had too many close calls. Miss the summer rides, but not the rain, wind and txting drivers.
My last ride was with Arthur (awa) who also has/had a GV250. If business goes well next year, may reward myself with a new bike for the weekends.

[imdying]

This is easy enough to put right. Make an appointment with a local JP (can be found through the local Citizns advice group). Get him to physically watch you stop with feet up for 5 seconds and then get him to sign a written statment to the fact. You can write it up factually but he must sign it and stamp it.Just because you can, does not mean you did, and nor does it provide evidence of what you did or didn't do at the time of the alleged offence.

Judge: Did you come to a complete stop, balanced with your feet up?

You: Yes

Judge: Did he?

Cop: Nope.

Judge: Judgement for the Crown, fine and costs, have a nice day.

[roogazza]

Been riding for 35 plus years - and the bandit is an easy bike to balance - not a problem demonstrating

Its good you are defending it. But 'fuck me' what a waste of time and money for everyone....meaning you and tax payers, feel for ya :confused:

[jasonu]

Just sayin.

If the Popo spends a day in court he's paid to be there. It'll be the taxpayers time and money that's wasted by the popos, not the Popos.

Fixed it for ya.

[dinosaur]

If the cop was close enough to the rail crossing to see that you checked for trains (despite the alleged not stopping) why didn't you notice him noticing you? Maybe your observation skills need improving and this is the necessary wake-up call.

Just a thought...

Fuck off dick .... I did stop !!! wake up to what

[dinosaur]

Trains are on rails......
cops are not (unfortunately )
you are supposed to check for trains...
What part is it you don't understand.?

You don't read real well do you - no surprises what you do for a living then

I did stop - I did check for trains
The cop even agreed i had checked for trains - if you had read the original post you may have known that

[dinosaur]

Just because you can, does not mean you did, and nor does it provide evidence of what you did or didn't do at the time of the alleged offence.

Judge: Did you come to a complete stop, balanced with your feet up?

You: Yes

Judge: Did he?

Cop: Nope.

Judge: Judgement for the Crown, fine and costs, have a nice day.

That'll be right - in NZ we have developed a system where if the police say you're guilty then you must be - never mind evidence - guilty until you prove your self innocent

[dinosaur]

Its good you are defending it. But 'fuck me' what a waste of time and money for everyone....meaning you and tax payers, feel for ya :confused:

If i had failed to stop -- then I would just pay it
what pisses me off is the attitude of the police officer - he was just dishing out tickets, arrogant shit
So I will defend it to the high court if I must - matter of principal

[awayatc]

You don't read real well do you - no surprises what you do for a living then

I did stop - I did check for trains
The cop even agreed i had checked for trains - if you had read the original post you may have known that

If you would read mine with a tad more patience you would have gotten that I was responding to the post above mine....
racing dave's post.
One is supposed to check for trains, not cops....

if you feel you must get personal however i will happily give you my contact details
see how brave you are in real life.

get your facts straight before you gob off

[dinosaur]

if you feel you must get personal however i will happily give you my contact details
see how brave you are in real life.

get your facts straight before you gob off

You're a complete fuck wit mate - you actually get that upset on KB that you want to meet to fight? like we were 13 at school???
Are you actually all there in the head?

What a nut job???

[wharekura]

Thread "Advice for fighting an Infringement Notice..." not fighting each other :drinknsin

[insomnia01]

Cool picture David

leave you guys alone for 5 minutes & look what happens .... :facepalm:

[insomnia01]

You're a complete fuck wit mate - you actually get that upset on KB that you want to meet to fight? like we were 13 at school???
Are you actually all there in the head?

What a nut job???

Settle Petal :nono: you over looked his comment he WAS refer to the comment above his Pete :girlfight:

[Old Steve]

Judge: Did you come to a complete stop, balanced with your feet up?

You: Yes, the Officer even advised me that he was charging me for not putting my feet down when I stopped - so he in fact acknowledges that I did stop.

Judge: Um, guess I can't argue with that logic, case dismissed.

Or that's the way I hope it goes ...

[kiwi cowboy]

You're a complete fuck wit mate - you actually get that upset on KB that you want to meet to fight? like we were 13 at school???
Are you actually all there in the head?

What a nut job???

UM you jump down someones throat that you take the wrong way because you don't read the post properly and when he explains you have another go and call him names lol:innocent:.

Just a thought but was this the sort of attitude you got off the bike with to talk to popo with?.

[Jantar]

This is easy enough to put right. Make an appointment with a local JP (can be found through the local Citizns advice group). Get him to physically watch you stop with feet up for 5 seconds and then get him to sign a written statment to the fact. You can write it up factually but he must sign it and stamp it.
Why 5 seconds? 1 second would be enough.

[Berries]

You don't read real well do you - no surprises what you do for a living then
If awayatc is a cop then we are all doomed.

[awayatc]

Dinosaurs extinct for a reason.....

the last one just going through death thrones.....
Sadly brain died first....

Harmless.....
Anmoying like fuck,
but harmless....



In case you wonder whats going on....
sad dinosaur fuck dishing out insulting red rep because he cant read properly,
then sends insulting pm.....
Then whinges on here that I react to verbal abuse in ways that suit me....
dont fuckin start what you cant finish....

[kiwi cowboy]

Dinosaurs extinct for a reason.....

the last one just going through death thrones.....
Sadly brain died first....

Harmless.....
Anmoying like fuck,
but harmless....



In case you wonder whats going on....
sad dinosaur fuck dishing out insulting red rep because he cant read properly,
then sends insulting pm.....
Then whinges on here that I react to verbal abuse in ways that suit me....
dont fuckin start what you cant finish....


Aaaawwwwwwwwwwww does you need a hug:love::love::hug::hug: (just kidding)

[dinosaur]

Settle Petal :nono: you over looked his comment he WAS refer to the comment above his Pete :girlfight:

Yeah i know I presumed he was referring to the original post but he was referring to the one above - but I was responding to his aggresive foul rep and threat after that - not acceptable really

[imdying]

That'll be right - in NZ we have developed a system where if the police say you're guilty then you must be - never mind evidence - guilty until you prove your self innocentThat is the point you dork!

The proposed video isn't evidence of what you did, only what you can do. That leaves the judge deciding between a professional law man, and somebody trying to get off a ticket.

[awayatc]

Yeah i know I presumed he was referring to the original post but he was referring to the one above - but I was responding to his aggresive foul rep and threat after that - not acceptable really


wow ....thats a new twist.....
hormone issues my dear..?
memory of a ....dinosaur?

you werent reponding my dear, you were dishing it out....
going as far as sending me abusive pm....
then crying when you get it back..
dont threaten somebody with violence, then cry when you may get what you wish for.....
Can't just insult and threaten people without expecting consequences....

tosser

Unlike Christmas fairy tales,
in the real world you do sometimes get what you ask for....

Merry Christmas

[Trade_nancy]

Questions I'd put before the court would be: does a cyclist have to put their feet on the ground at a STOP? They often stand up on their peddles and keep their momentum.
Does a horse and rider have to ..oh forget that you honour..Iz being silly..

[gjm]

Sounds quite bizarre. It'll be interesting to see, from an observers perspective although I appreciate the OP may think otherwise, if the police officer changes his story in court to 'did not stop', as opposed to 'did not put a foot down'. I suspect that if the officer were to say, in court, that the bike was observed to have come to a complete stop then there is no case to answer. The integrity of the officer in question may be the deciding factor.

I used to regularly completely stop, clutch in, both feet up, knock down into first (both feet still up, and completely stationery), then turn right into my drive. It was an everyday thing. Five seconds stationery was normal. (Don't know if I could have remained stable for significantly more though!)

Good luck. Hope it comes good.

[mada]

video yourself doing it and then send in a copy with copy of ticket to the scummy nzherald, they're bound to make a story out of it :bash:

[FlangMasterJ]

if you feel you must get personal however i will happily give you my contact details

see how brave you are in real life.

http://i.imgur.com/aaeTp6S.gif


I got really good at restarting my KTM when it stalled, come to a standstill, feet still up, press the leccy start and off again.

Good luck with the ticket mate.

[BlackSheepLogic]

Yeah i know I presumed he was referring to the original post but he was referring to the one above - but I was responding to his aggresive foul rep and threat after that - not acceptable really

I think you should go back and read awayatc's org post. He was supporting your position.

[Oakie]

Pay the $150 and move on. Even if you ride your bike into court and show you can balance it for a minute on the end of the judge's knob that doesn't prove you stopped and balanced when the cop saw you. It's his word against yours and he's the one with the Warrant Card (if that's what they still have). Put your foot down next time just to prove you've stopped. It won't make you less of a man.

[Berries]

Pay the $150 and move on.
No. He stopped. He complied fully with the law and the post says that the cop even asked him if he put his foot down when he stopped. I would just send the ticket back with a polite explanation. Either the cop will get told he needs to learn the road rules in a bit more detail or he is going to have to lie. You would hope his seniors would go for the former and not put the officer in a position where he has to tell porkies.

The reason people need to know the rules is so you can argue them at the side of the road. Once the ticket is written you are half way fucked.

[Coldrider]

If you ride in Kabul, come to a stop sign, put your foot down, KABOOMB !!!!!!!!! :facepalm:

[Kiwi Graham]

From my experience you can take it to court, present your side of the case, after the cop has presented his. The cop can end up dismissed from the service partly as a result of his dismal lack of profesionalism and you will still loose.

The magistrate appologised to me for fining me I think because he has no option but to favour the cops side of the story. Like someone said earlier at least he'll be off the road for most of the day.

[imdying]

Either the cop will get told he needs to learn the road rules in a bit more detail or he is going to have to lie.Why? It doesn't sound like he is the one telling porkies here.

[dinosaur]

How can a cop say with honesty that he could even see if I put my foot down??
I went back down to where the cop was parked - and it was far too far away to see if I put my foot down, he couldn't even see the left hand side of the bike, the rail lines are raised which makes his view and subsequent statement a load of bollocks
306755306756

[Kiwi Graham]

Mate, again from experience of my dealings with them, they wont let fact get in the way of them pursuing a conviction. It will be your word against his. by all means go armed with your proof, picture JP testamony of being able to remain stationary and do all this in the courtroom balancing on your bike withyour feet up......the way the system works is according to the court the cops dont make mistakes or god forbid tell lies.

[dinosaur]

Mate, again from experience of my dealings with them, they wont let fact get in the way of them pursuing a conviction. It will be your word against his. by all means go armed with your proof, picture JP testamony of being able to remain stationary and do all this in the courtroom balancing on your bike withyour feet up......the way the system works is according to the court the cops dont make mistakes or god forbid tell lies.

Yep - you're right

I've seen it before - and they dismiss any evidence on technicality - but it will not stop me from trying - its the principal of things that matter

[Old Steve]

....the way the system works is according to the court the cops dont make mistakes or god forbid tell lies.

Yeah, now what was that case where that couple were murdered in Pukekawa and the cops put cartridge cases in the garden? The courts fell for that for years, and then my taxpayer's dollars had to be used to pay Arthur Allan Thomas compensation.

Not that your traffic infringement is on a par with that historic case. But the cops are human, though this one might have made a poor decision at the time and now be reluctant to admit his error.

[pzkpfw]

Fight it.

I'm in for $50 if a fine still eventuates.

[Murray]

Looking at those photo's if the copper changes his story just change yours and say yes I did put my foot down. He can't prove it either way!!

[pritch]

Looking at those photo's if the copper changes his story just change yours and say yes I did put my foot down. He can't prove it either way!!

Except that :Police: have read this thread?

[pritch]

How can a cop say with honesty that he could even see if I put my foot down??
I went back down to where the cop was parked - and it was far too far away to see if I put my foot down, he couldn't even see the left hand side of the bike, the rail lines are raised which makes his view and subsequent statement a load of bollocks
306755306756

Those pics look as if they might be taken from too high a viewpoint, it might be better if the shot was from about the level the cops head would have been when he was sitting in the car. Take four or five copies to court, if there is going to be a discussion the JPs will want all concerned to be able to see what is being discussed.

[G4L4XY]

This whole thread has had me asking myself "shit do you have to stop at railway crossings?" When I was in Ngaruawahia yesterday I was walking past the railway crossing and there were no stop signs and no vehicles were stopping. So I thought well what about ones with no bells/arms. Anyway by the time I jump back on here I see some pics up (and I've google imaged the area myself) and lo and behold there is a stop sign!
If you stopped without putting your foot down so what? You stopped and he admitted you stopped LOL I hope you get off it!

[jasonu]

Those pics look as if they might be taken from too high a viewpoint, it might be better if the shot was from about the level the cops head would have been when he was sitting in the car. Take four or five copies to court, if there is going to be a discussion the JPs will want all concerned to be able to see what is being discussed.

There won't be a discussion. The judge will side with the pigs and add some court fees for wasting his time.

[pritch]

There won't be a discussion. The judge will side with the pigs and add some court fees for wasting his time.

Indeed that is the most likely scenario, and knowing he has to appear the officer may embellish his evidence, wouldn't be the first time.
(And there speaks the voice of sad experience.):violin:

The last time I fronted up to argue the point complete with drawings though the charge was dismissed. Mind you, at one point a JP referred to me as "This gentleman."
I must be getting old. :whistle:

[Oakie]

So I've spent the last two commuting days seeing how easy it is to come to a complete and proper stop and then looking both ways while balanced to do a traffic check. Yeah, can be done but so much easier just to put a foot down. Don't know why you wouldn't take the easier route unless you're either showing off or ... not actually coming to a proper stop long enough to do the check while stationary. OK, flame away....

[Berries]

Just because you can't do it...............

I tried it once. As I began to lose balance I put my foot down slowly and got my jeans caught on the foot peg. Went down like a sack of shit.

[TLDV8]

I go to court on the 24th December for failing to stop at a rail crossing

turning off Ruakura Rd on to Holland Rd, pulled up and stopped at the rail crossing then continued over (no trains coming)
Pulled over 200 meters up the road by Police - they asked if I stopped, I said I did
He asked if I put my foot down when I stopped ......... I thought for a moment then replied "I don't think so"



Indecision.
Why did you say "I don't think so" , you forgot in 200 metres ?
You were done right there and in court it will be the same.


Did you stop, yes.
Did you put your foot down, yes. (The picture suggests they couldn't confirm that anyway)

Is that lying, not in the logic sense.
To any non motorcyclist not putting your foot down to steady the bike while you observe both to the left and right means you did not stop.

It would have made no difference if you were 'Crunchy the Clown on a unicycle and balanced there for a minute.

Good luck anyway but think the indecision straight off the bat will be the decider.

Far from New Zealand but this makes me rethink my stop and goes (no foot down or sometimes dab) at some intersections.

[jasonu]

Far from New Zealand but this makes me rethink my stop and goes (no foot down or sometimes dab) at some intersections.

Not that far.

[bluninja]

So I've spent the last two commuting days seeing how easy it is to come to a complete and proper stop and then looking both ways while balanced to do a traffic check. Yeah, can be done but so much easier just to put a foot down. Don't know why you wouldn't take the easier route unless you're either showing off or ... not actually coming to a proper stop long enough to do the check while stationary. OK, flame away....

Like all things riding; it's about skill, machinery, conditions and personal preference. I prefer to keep my feet on the pegs unless I'm stopping to get off or stretching my legs.

Just a question on approaching stop signs. Do you ride up to the stop sign and brake quickly to a stop before checking all is clear and then moving off? Or do you slow down making observations like for a give way, stop, look, and if clear move off?

Seems to me that if you slowed rapidly to a stop, checked and then set off, it would be more noticeable than if you had come to a stop gradually and then set off. Also there's no benefit in time in gradually slowing as you have to come to a complete stop before checking the way is clear.

[Oakie]

Just a question on approaching stop signs. Do you ride up to the stop sign and brake quickly to a stop before checking all is clear and then moving off? Or do you slow down making observations like for a give way, stop, look, and if clear move off?.

I'll do either depending on circumstances and my mood.

[speights_bud]

Soo what happened....?

[Akzle]

Just because you can't do it...............

I tried it once. As I began to lose balance I put my foot down slowly and got my jeans caught on the foot peg. Went down like a sack of shit.

sack of shit is as sack of shit does

[Berries]

All that was missing from this thread was the current KB post whore.


Welcome.

[mossy1200]

Not so long ago if I was at that crossing I would have been pulled for doing a jump.

Popo was watching crossing hoping to see some jumps and you were disappointing so got a ticket.

When go to court explain if you stop but are balanced at the time don't bother grounding a foot unless necessary. That's how I ride unless im looking forward to a stretch after a few in the saddle.
Also if he was driving and not parked theres is no way he could judge a complete stop from that angle while travelling.

[bsasuper]

Years ago I got ticketed for the same thing, PoPo said I didn't stop because I didn't put foot down, I said I can balance at a stop without putting foot down, PoPo said I don't think you are that good. After he wrote out ticket I explained what it was on my helmet (the first gopro on the market), and that courts work on facts on assumptions. The ticket was withdrawn before the court date.

[jasonu]

All that was missing from this thread was the current KB post whore.


Welcome.

Cassina??????

[dinosaur]

went to court - just to set a court day!!! 27 Feb

[FROSTY]

Dino --couple of questions I wonder if you could clarify for me.
1) was here an actual STOP sign at hat rail crossing or is it a stop for barrier/stop for trains?
2) are you absolutely 100% certain that you came to a complete halt whit looking -it wasn;'t just moving at very slow speed?
problem you have is that mr policeman has stated you failed to stop. Th foot down part is smoke n mirrors when it comes to court.
You will be asked if you ame to a complete stop.Cop will be asked if you came to a complete stop -you canguess whose sorry the judge will believe.--so you ned proof of innocence.

[haydes55]

I reckon you have a decent case of it, the officer admitted you stopped.

I have tried to stop without putting my feet down. Front brake only, I can stop for a split second before starting to tip, if I use only the rear brake when I'm already slow enough to stop, I can stay stable stationary for a good second.

[dinosaur]

Those pics look as if they might be taken from too high a viewpoint, it might be better if the shot was from about the level the cops head would have been when he was sitting in the car.

The cop was out of his car - standing

I could see him, and I thought I had done everything OK - even WOF and Rego was up to date, I was surprised he pulled me up

[Latte]

went to court - just to set a court day!!! 27 Feb

Let us know how it goes, one more sleep maddafakker.

[Old Steve]

Best of luck tomorrow.

I'd concentrate on what the officer said, "Did you put your foot down when you stopped?" That confirms you stopped, and he was asking if you put your foot down when you did stop. Don't question the officer. Don't ask him about what he said, you might find he remembers a different version of what he said. Don't question him on where he was and how good his view was as his poor view contradicts his statement that he saw you stop, and was only asking what you did when you were stopped.

[RDJ]

In general, with honourable exceptions, the New Zealand police force is the most classical example of "picking off the low hanging fruit".

Generally law-abiding middle-aged middle-class citizens, pulled over at 104 km/h and fined for the maximum. Because we will pay.

Wifebeating and child killing - e.g. the Kahuis - allocated the absolute maximum of time without police interrogation to "grieve" (read, get their stories straight).

Lundy and Bain and the Crewe murders - common factor, all Pakehas without an applicable RDM (Racial Defence Mechanism) so the police don't really care what it takes to get a conviction, they go ahead with Whatever It Takes. Including, of course, Inexplicable Memory Loss.

And there are plenty more examples.

[scumdog]

Generally law-abiding middle-aged middle-class citizens, pulled over at 104 km/h and fined for the maximum. Because we will pay.




And what would 'fined for the minimum' be?

Cos I'd go for THAT fine!:msn-wink:

[mossy1200]

Good luck.
I got a ticket once for not stopping at a stop sign.
I did in fact stop but approx a car length behind the painted lines. The only reason being that the road was wet and the glare from the street lights ment I couldn't see where they were on the road. I stopped based on the stop sign. Wish I had taken it to court but being young and dumb I just paid the fine.

[carbonhed]

Good luck!

It'll be fascinating to hear how you get on.

[dinosaur]

Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer – actually a Police Sargent, who stopped me and issued me with an infringement notice (fine) for failing to stop at a rail crossing.
He claimed I didn’t come to a complete stop, I claim I did
His assumption was because I didn’t put my foot down then I didn’t come to a complete stop
It came down to his word against mine – and as many would tell you; the New Zealand Courts always find in favour of the Police – this needs to be challenged, the police need to present evidence beyond just a testimony from them
My case summary was a bit OTT but won the day for me – earning a commendation from the Magistrate, and charges dismissed.
My rant:
I should be Presumed innocent until proved guilty:
What proof has the crown presented? The testimony of the Officer only
What the prosecution is asking you to accept is; when a Police Officer stands before the court accusing a free citizen, his testimony alone amounts to enough evidence to presume guilt, that they need not present any further evidence in this case
Yet under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure, it reads; “Everyone who is charged with an offence has: the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
The presumption of innocence means the burden of proof rests with the Crown, not with the accused. If you are accused of a crime, you do not need to prove that you are innocent – your innocence is the starting assumption, the Crown must prove that you are guilty.
If the police wish to sit at a compulsory stop, run a campaign of awareness and know this is what they are doing on this particular day – why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? Why not employ the camera that is on every police issued cell phone, or set up a camera at the crossing?

Why is this important to me, why don’t I just pay the fine; I want to talk about …. the rule of law
The free citizens of New Zealand cannot go about our business if we are subject to the arbitrary will of others – be it other private citizens or government officials. If a thug can beat you up and take your stuff, you are not free.
Nor are you free if a government official can accuse you of breaking the law without evidence, fine you or take your money at their discretion. Free people live under the rule of law, not the rule of men.
If an officer can simply fine you, and is not called on to prove guilt, and they are left to actively go about their business in that arrogant manner – then where is our freedom
This shows little or no respect for fundamental principles of justice
Shifting the burden of proof from state agencies to the people does not merely expose citizens to injustice, but it reduces government agencies’ incentive to conduct their inquiries to a high standard. It is a licence for incompetence
As evidenced in this case where; the Police run a campaign – not just a routine Police stop – a campaign they have planned; they selected the rail crossing in advance – and yet no one gives any thought to setting up a camera or a radar, or even setting up with a clear view of the crossing, or any means of proving if a vehicle came to a stop! why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? why not use the camera on your phone?
Another principal of Law in a free society is:
You are permitted to do anything that is not expressly illegal.
The officer sore fit to note that I had a ‘Radar’ on board – why? They are legal
I wasn’t breaking or being accused of breaking any speed limits, it adds nothing to the Crowns case alleging I failed to stop? Yet it influenced the officers decision, and I have no doubt it influenced the decision of the prosecutor to bring this case to court
In a free society you do not need to seek permission from the authorities to do something that is lawful. This principle is a close relative of the presumption of innocence. You should not be treated any differently by those charged with upholding and enforcing the law as a result
Not only did this officer wrongly apply the law – believing I am required to put my foot down to stop, but he further erodes my rights as a free citizen by effectively fining me for having a radar detector – even though it is a completely lawful thing to have and use
This may seem a trivial case to most – however I remind you all that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.

[swbarnett]

Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer ...
Bloody good show. Well done.


the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.
This needs to be at the very top of any school curriculum. And taught in all it's historical detail.

[Akzle]

hurrah!
10mfchar

[awayatc]

Not often do you see somebody using so many words proclaiming they are just another tosspot.......

can't be arsed reading all that drivel, .....
Dinosaurs principals being as extinct as the species itself

karma being the bitch it is, I am sure you get what you deserve

[swbarnett]

Not often do you see somebody using so many words proclaiming they are just another tosspot.......

can't be arsed reading all that drivel, .....
Dinosaurs principals being as extinct as the species itself

karma being the bitch it is, I am sure you get what you deserve
You don't like freedom then? You're happy to be a slave to the whims of the few?

[Kartik]

Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer – actually a Police Sargent, who stopped me and issued me with an infringement notice (fine) for failing to stop at a rail crossing.
He claimed I didn’t come to a complete stop, I claim I did
His assumption was because I didn’t put my foot down then I didn’t come to a complete stop
It came down to his word against mine – and as many would tell you; the New Zealand Courts always find in favour of the Police – this needs to be challenged, the police need to present evidence beyond just a testimony from them
My case summary was a bit OTT but won the day for me – earning a commendation from the Magistrate, and charges dismissed.
My rant:
I should be Presumed innocent until proved guilty:
What proof has the crown presented? The testimony of the Officer only
What the prosecution is asking you to accept is; when a Police Officer stands before the court accusing a free citizen, his testimony alone amounts to enough evidence to presume guilt, that they need not present any further evidence in this case
Yet under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure, it reads; “Everyone who is charged with an offence has: the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
The presumption of innocence means the burden of proof rests with the Crown, not with the accused. If you are accused of a crime, you do not need to prove that you are innocent – your innocence is the starting assumption, the Crown must prove that you are guilty.
If the police wish to sit at a compulsory stop, run a campaign of awareness and know this is what they are doing on this particular day – why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? Why not employ the camera that is on every police issued cell phone, or set up a camera at the crossing?

Why is this important to me, why don’t I just pay the fine; I want to talk about …. the rule of law
The free citizens of New Zealand cannot go about our business if we are subject to the arbitrary will of others – be it other private citizens or government officials. If a thug can beat you up and take your stuff, you are not free.
Nor are you free if a government official can accuse you of breaking the law without evidence, fine you or take your money at their discretion. Free people live under the rule of law, not the rule of men.
If an officer can simply fine you, and is not called on to prove guilt, and they are left to actively go about their business in that arrogant manner – then where is our freedom
This shows little or no respect for fundamental principles of justice
Shifting the burden of proof from state agencies to the people does not merely expose citizens to injustice, but it reduces government agencies’ incentive to conduct their inquiries to a high standard. It is a licence for incompetence
As evidenced in this case where; the Police run a campaign – not just a routine Police stop – a campaign they have planned; they selected the rail crossing in advance – and yet no one gives any thought to setting up a camera or a radar, or even setting up with a clear view of the crossing, or any means of proving if a vehicle came to a stop! why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? why not use the camera on your phone?
Another principal of Law in a free society is:
You are permitted to do anything that is not expressly illegal.
The officer sore fit to note that I had a ‘Radar’ on board – why? They are legal
I wasn’t breaking or being accused of breaking any speed limits, it adds nothing to the Crowns case alleging I failed to stop? Yet it influenced the officers decision, and I have no doubt it influenced the decision of the prosecutor to bring this case to court
In a free society you do not need to seek permission from the authorities to do something that is lawful. This principle is a close relative of the presumption of innocence. You should not be treated any differently by those charged with upholding and enforcing the law as a result
Not only did this officer wrongly apply the law – believing I am required to put my foot down to stop, but he further erodes my rights as a free citizen by effectively fining me for having a radar detector – even though it is a completely lawful thing to have and use
This may seem a trivial case to most – however I remind you all that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.
Kudos to you man! Well done for standing up for your rights.

[dinosaur]

Dinosaurs principals being as extinct as the species itself
Not that you'd know much about principals now would you :laugh:


karma being the bitch it is, I am sure you get what you deserve

Is that what happened to you? Poor thing, you must of had a hard life:violin:

I hope things get better for you - and what ever it is that you are inflicted with .... comes right for you

[dinosaur]

You will be asked if you came to a complete stop.Cop will be asked if you came to a complete stop -you canguess whose sorry the judge will believe.--so you need proof of innocence.

how's that VX800 going

[caspernz]

Interesting read. Good on you for having a go in the court system, not many of us have either the time or the inclination to take that route. Come to think of it, that was quite likely the thinking when the officer in your case wrote the TON.

BTW - Situational awareness is one of those skills one picks up over time...

[pritch]

karma being the bitch it is, I am sure you get what you deserve

It would seem he already did - he was discharged. :whistle:

[Old Steve]

Congratulations! Well played that man!

[Trade_nancy]

Not often do you see somebody using so many words proclaiming they are just another tosspot.......

can't be arsed reading all that drivel, .....
Dinosaurs principals being as extinct as the species itself

karma being the bitch it is, I am sure you get what you deserve

Sheesh..I know how you feel..I wish I hadn't just read your gob-shite..

[biketimus_prime]

Well done and congratulations!

[Swoop]

Jolly good show! Well done indeed.

Just a word of warning, the local plod will probably want to keep "an eye on you" as an upstart and troublemaker... Best keep a sharp lookout.


Not that you'd know much about principals now would you
The head of a school?
Principles are entirely different. Don't ask a policeman about these.

[Murray]

Jolly good show! Well done indeed.

Just a word of warning, the local plod will probably want to keep "an eye on you" as an upstart and troublemaker... Best keep a sharp lookout.



An upstart - hes a bloody dinosaur!!

Well done pete your shout next wednesday

[Big Dog]

Good stuff. I'm not for barking up every ticket but in this case there was just reason as shown by the outcome.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[dinosaur]

not many of us have either the time or the inclination to take that route.


I didn't really have the time either - but felt it just needed to be challenged
far too many are being pinged for minor infringements that they did not commit and don't challenge it because they are busy and the system is slow and frustrating - easier to just pay the fine
But I have observed an erosion of professionalism from our public services, a complete arrogance that they can throw their weight around and stand up in court and they know they will get the support of the magistrate

Most Police are fair minded people just doing their job

But some are arrogant and treat the citizen appallingly - imping our civil liberties without a care for them

I have been offended at the actions of a few lately - a 14 year old girl had her teeth knocked out by a male officer when he mistook her for a party goer in town
Police complaints dismissed it for lack of evidence

Elderly lady has a heart attack and runs of the road, Police visit in hospital and issue a ticket for careless driving .....WTF

woman stops to attend to her child who has stopped breathing - while in attendance and waiting for the ambulance she is given an ticket for improper parking ?

A group of us doing about 100 ks (we had seen the officer ahead) the Police pull out one rider and issue an infringement for 116k's

I could go on but you get my point
I don't think my case will change much - but everyone stood up it will

[husaberg]

Not often do you see somebody using so many words proclaiming they are just another tosspot.......

can't be arsed reading all that drivel, .....
Dinosaurs principals being as extinct as the species itself

karma being the bitch it is, I am sure you get what you deserve

Akezels admiration? Wow karma is indeed a bitch.........:innocent:


hurrah!
10mfchar


Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer – actually a Police Sargent, who stopped me and issued me with an infringement notice (fine) for failing to stop at a rail crossing.
He claimed I didn’t come to a complete stop, I claim I did....... In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.

I am all for standing up for injustice... but if you added up the time involved in fighting it ..........(yes morals and fighting for justice has no price)

One question though, now that's its over.... did you actually stop...........

[Paul in NZ]

Good onya...

[Reubix]

Thanks for sharing your story

[MarkH]

One question though, now that's its over.... did you actually stop...........

If the cops <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">didn't see it</span> couldn't prove it, he didn't do it!

[jasonu]

Today I went to court – to defend myself against the word of a Police Officer – actually a Police Sargent, who stopped me and issued me with an infringement notice (fine) for failing to stop at a rail crossing.
He claimed I didn’t come to a complete stop, I claim I did
His assumption was because I didn’t put my foot down then I didn’t come to a complete stop
It came down to his word against mine – and as many would tell you; the New Zealand Courts always find in favour of the Police – this needs to be challenged, the police need to present evidence beyond just a testimony from them
My case summary was a bit OTT but won the day for me – earning a commendation from the Magistrate, and charges dismissed.
My rant:
I should be Presumed innocent until proved guilty:
What proof has the crown presented? The testimony of the Officer only
What the prosecution is asking you to accept is; when a Police Officer stands before the court accusing a free citizen, his testimony alone amounts to enough evidence to presume guilt, that they need not present any further evidence in this case
Yet under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure, it reads; “Everyone who is charged with an offence has: the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
The presumption of innocence means the burden of proof rests with the Crown, not with the accused. If you are accused of a crime, you do not need to prove that you are innocent – your innocence is the starting assumption, the Crown must prove that you are guilty.
If the police wish to sit at a compulsory stop, run a campaign of awareness and know this is what they are doing on this particular day – why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? Why not employ the camera that is on every police issued cell phone, or set up a camera at the crossing?

Why is this important to me, why don’t I just pay the fine; I want to talk about …. the rule of law
The free citizens of New Zealand cannot go about our business if we are subject to the arbitrary will of others – be it other private citizens or government officials. If a thug can beat you up and take your stuff, you are not free.
Nor are you free if a government official can accuse you of breaking the law without evidence, fine you or take your money at their discretion. Free people live under the rule of law, not the rule of men.
If an officer can simply fine you, and is not called on to prove guilt, and they are left to actively go about their business in that arrogant manner – then where is our freedom
This shows little or no respect for fundamental principles of justice
Shifting the burden of proof from state agencies to the people does not merely expose citizens to injustice, but it reduces government agencies’ incentive to conduct their inquiries to a high standard. It is a licence for incompetence
As evidenced in this case where; the Police run a campaign – not just a routine Police stop – a campaign they have planned; they selected the rail crossing in advance – and yet no one gives any thought to setting up a camera or a radar, or even setting up with a clear view of the crossing, or any means of proving if a vehicle came to a stop! why have your camera on the vehicle pointing away from the railway crossing? why not use the camera on your phone?
Another principal of Law in a free society is:
You are permitted to do anything that is not expressly illegal.
The officer sore fit to note that I had a ‘Radar’ on board – why? They are legal
I wasn’t breaking or being accused of breaking any speed limits, it adds nothing to the Crowns case alleging I failed to stop? Yet it influenced the officers decision, and I have no doubt it influenced the decision of the prosecutor to bring this case to court
In a free society you do not need to seek permission from the authorities to do something that is lawful. This principle is a close relative of the presumption of innocence. You should not be treated any differently by those charged with upholding and enforcing the law as a result
Not only did this officer wrongly apply the law – believing I am required to put my foot down to stop, but he further erodes my rights as a free citizen by effectively fining me for having a radar detector – even though it is a completely lawful thing to have and use
This may seem a trivial case to most – however I remind you all that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. In a democracy, we are free only so long as citizens are willing to stand up for freedom.

You sound like a right trouble maker. How dare you question the word of a NZ law enforcement officer.
I think you can expect a ticket or two for doing 101kmh, broken tail lights etc.309502

Seriously though, good on ya for sticking it to the pigs.

[dinosaur]

One question though, now that's its over.... did you actually stop...........

As I approached the crossing you could the two officers along Holland Road, one officer already had a car pulled over issuing an infringement notice - so of course I came to a complete stop

The crossing is raised up higher than the road - so when you stop you are stopping on an incline - making it rather easy to stop, let the bike creep backwards while you check for trains, then pull forward on the clutch and off you go - no need to put your foot down

I was not expecting them to pull me over - I did think about my rego - the rego sticker on the bike had expired however I had renewed it on line that morning.

[willytheekid]

:clap:....well done Sir!



I didn't really have the time either - but felt it just needed to be challenged
far too many are being pinged for minor infringements that they did not commit and don't challenge it because they are busy and the system is slow and frustrating - easier to just pay the fine
But I have observed an erosion of professionalism from our public services, a complete arrogance that they can throw their weight around and stand up in court and they know they will get the support of the magistrate

Most Police are fair minded people just doing their job

But some are arrogant and treat the citizen appallingly - imping our civil liberties without a care for them

I have been offended at the actions of a few lately - a 14 year old girl had her teeth knocked out by a male officer when he mistook her for a party goer in town
Police complaints dismissed it for lack of evidence

Elderly lady has a heart attack and runs of the road, Police visit in hospital and issue a ticket for careless driving .....WTF

woman stops to attend to her child who has stopped breathing - while in attendance and waiting for the ambulance she is given an ticket for improper parking ?

A group of us doing about 100 ks (we had seen the officer ahead) the Police pull out one rider and issue an infringement for 116k's

I could go on but you get my point
I don't think my case will change much - but everyone stood up it will


Good to see someone making a stand against such a BS fine...I too don't put my foot down every time I stop and was quite surprised you got a ticket :confused:....failing to stop?:killingme



Jolly good show! Well done indeed.

Just a word of warning, the local plod will probably want to keep "an eye on you" as an upstart and troublemaker... Best keep a sharp lookout.


Hate to say it....but This +10 :yes:

Alot of em sure as shit don't like there word being "challenged"...most are nice folk doing a tough job:yes:...but sadly there's some real dodgy power tripping thugs in the force now. :oi-grr:...lets hope he's one of the nice popo :D


again, well done for standing up for your RIGHT! to question the ticket :first:

[russd7]

Alot of em sure as shit don't like there word being "challenged"...most are nice folk doing a tough job:yes:...but sadly there's some real dodgy power tripping thugs in the force now. :oi-grr:...lets hope he's one of the nice popo :D


again, well done for standing up for your RIGHT! to question the ticket :first:

nothins changed in 30yrs, most of the MOT in the old black an whites were power tripping mongrels, i think in the last 15 yrs i have only come across one cop that i would consider a mongrel and he was run out of town (no make that two, was the arsehole at the bottom of the kaimais as well), all the others that i have dealt with have been pretty good and a lot have let me off with warnings.

[carbonhed]

Nice work!

[insomnia01]

Well worded defence Pete :niceone: